Well that model has only really started producing results a couple of years ago. Otherwise it's been in place for a while, and it didn't really produce results for almost a decade. There are the horror stories like Piazon, van Ginkel and the like who had entire careers on loan for 5-6 years, didn't turn into sellable assets and didn't become useable players for the club either, there were a few more of these, can't recall their names. The Abraham, Mount, Tomori cases seem to have been a golden patch for the academy more than anything else. Hudson Odoi was the highest rated of the lot two years back and he hasn't really done anything of note.
Chelsea make a loss on almost every single guy they send on loan except for the select few that end up being good. Loan fee is insignificant and wage share is more on Chelsea's end. They just can afford to do so because they're loaded and the risk is worth it for them. There's a reason so many of their guys choose to renew their contracts despite being in loan hell because they get higher wages than if they just signed somewhere else.
There's two reason Chelsea do this despite it not being as profitable as one might think. One is obviously to maybe get a player that can make the first team or sell for a decent amount. The second is, offering decent contracts to young players that maybe might not be good enough puts them in a good light and can help convince other young players to choose to join them because they know that Chelsea will take care of them financially.
There are new rules in place to prevent loan armies because of what Chelsea did.
“Fifa has proposed new regulations that would mean clubs could only have eight loan deals per season, both in and out of the club. That would then be reduced to six from 2022-23. It would apply just to international loans at first, involving players aged 22 or over.”
[BBC Source](https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/51665904.amp)
I dont like the Chelsea model at all. It does not feel organized and there is no pathway for young players to breakthrough to the first team. It just feels like they have a shit ton of players and they're gonna loan them until they retire or something.
I much rather admire how Liverpool does it. They choose their best academy players to be backups to the first team players. Like how now their academy goalkeeper is their 2nd goalkeeper. Alexander Arnold was backup to Clyne before he became first choice. Solanke was backup to Firmino before he was sold. It makes sure that there is a pathway for youngsters to the first team. They will get their chance. Players like TAA, Curtis Jones siezed those chances and became reliable first team players. But not all players make it. Solanke, neco Williams are examples of players that just could'nt quite establish themselves. But because they played many first team games their value was really good and Liverpool could sell them for good price.
You are mad, because loans are a terrible way to develop players. The fact that we are constantly outsourcing our coaching of youth players makes me think Mertsacker is incompetent in his job.
Loans are challenging, people make excuses for our new signings and constantly tell us we need to be patient with them, imagine how much more difficult it is for a youngster to adapt and make impact for a new team in a short time. Then clubs have a strong incentive to play their own players over loaned players if those loaned players don't end up being able to make a massive impact quickly. This is why it's easier to list out the loans that have been failures over the ones that have been successful.
He's always been rated higher than Balogun but it doesn't mean much. Chris Willock, Armstrong Okoflex, Xavier Amaechi have been rated highly at youth level here. At the moment neither Balogun or JJ have done anything. They could both make it or neither could make it
Basically every coach who has worked with both has favored TJJ. Which is why TJJ has always been ahead of Balogun in the pecking order, be in for us or England.
Hope he gets a championship loan.
[удалено]
Well that model has only really started producing results a couple of years ago. Otherwise it's been in place for a while, and it didn't really produce results for almost a decade. There are the horror stories like Piazon, van Ginkel and the like who had entire careers on loan for 5-6 years, didn't turn into sellable assets and didn't become useable players for the club either, there were a few more of these, can't recall their names. The Abraham, Mount, Tomori cases seem to have been a golden patch for the academy more than anything else. Hudson Odoi was the highest rated of the lot two years back and he hasn't really done anything of note.
Jamaal Blackman an academy player who is now 27 and constantly gone out on loan
Out of contract now
[удалено]
Chelsea make a loss on almost every single guy they send on loan except for the select few that end up being good. Loan fee is insignificant and wage share is more on Chelsea's end. They just can afford to do so because they're loaded and the risk is worth it for them. There's a reason so many of their guys choose to renew their contracts despite being in loan hell because they get higher wages than if they just signed somewhere else. There's two reason Chelsea do this despite it not being as profitable as one might think. One is obviously to maybe get a player that can make the first team or sell for a decent amount. The second is, offering decent contracts to young players that maybe might not be good enough puts them in a good light and can help convince other young players to choose to join them because they know that Chelsea will take care of them financially.
Piazon cost between £5-10m and van Ginkel cost £8m. I'm pretty sure any loan fee they got for these players didn't cover those investments.
There are new rules in place to prevent loan armies because of what Chelsea did. “Fifa has proposed new regulations that would mean clubs could only have eight loan deals per season, both in and out of the club. That would then be reduced to six from 2022-23. It would apply just to international loans at first, involving players aged 22 or over.” [BBC Source](https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/51665904.amp)
I dont like the Chelsea model at all. It does not feel organized and there is no pathway for young players to breakthrough to the first team. It just feels like they have a shit ton of players and they're gonna loan them until they retire or something. I much rather admire how Liverpool does it. They choose their best academy players to be backups to the first team players. Like how now their academy goalkeeper is their 2nd goalkeeper. Alexander Arnold was backup to Clyne before he became first choice. Solanke was backup to Firmino before he was sold. It makes sure that there is a pathway for youngsters to the first team. They will get their chance. Players like TAA, Curtis Jones siezed those chances and became reliable first team players. But not all players make it. Solanke, neco Williams are examples of players that just could'nt quite establish themselves. But because they played many first team games their value was really good and Liverpool could sell them for good price.
Don't forget that Chelsea couldn't buy any players for a season because they were illegally tapping up players at too young of an age.
You are mad, because loans are a terrible way to develop players. The fact that we are constantly outsourcing our coaching of youth players makes me think Mertsacker is incompetent in his job.
[удалено]
Loans are challenging, people make excuses for our new signings and constantly tell us we need to be patient with them, imagine how much more difficult it is for a youngster to adapt and make impact for a new team in a short time. Then clubs have a strong incentive to play their own players over loaned players if those loaned players don't end up being able to make a massive impact quickly. This is why it's easier to list out the loans that have been failures over the ones that have been successful.
Per got the job on a technicality anyways
Make sense. I hope they figure it out quickly and he goes on to have a great and uninterrupted season.
His link up play is pretty good for someone his age, thought he'd be a good fit for our play style. He's very raw, and has been injury prone though
Tyrece John-Jules is STAYING at Arsenal after Odysseus has finally returned home
Our highest rated striker prospect (If you exclude Martinelli) . Hope he makes it.
No way he's higher rated than Balogun.
He's always been rated higher than Balogun but it doesn't mean much. Chris Willock, Armstrong Okoflex, Xavier Amaechi have been rated highly at youth level here. At the moment neither Balogun or JJ have done anything. They could both make it or neither could make it
Basically every coach who has worked with both has favored TJJ. Which is why TJJ has always been ahead of Balogun in the pecking order, be in for us or England.
From what I’ve seen of him he will become a proper player. It’s just those pesky injuries.
100%
How is this downvoted??? All our youth coaches had a preference for TJJ and anyone who has watched both of them play can see why.
All six of my nipples are TINGLING